Throw-In Situation (NCAA)

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

While I agree with the conclusions being drawn here, I think it is safe to say that the intent of the change would not be to restart the count at 0 in this sort of play.

I could see either an interpretation or even a rule update to say that a player who catches the ball in the air on a throwin does not give the ball frontcourt/backcourt status until they land. That would solve this issue as well as a number of other issues.

The NCAA-Women's committee is going to give the ball FC status on the catch and still allow the throw-in exception to land in the BC. So a new 10-second will be given.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Matt S.

In the women's book, rule 9-13-10 will have to be clarified. Right now, a player who leaps from the front court and catches a throw in with both feet off the court can land on either side of the division line; my 'common sense' interpretation would be to assume that the ball never achieved front court status in this scenario, but yes, some clarification will be necessary.

Why would you assume that?
Why not accept that the ball achieves frontcourt status on the catch and then returns to the backcourt on the landing, but due to the throw-in exception the team does not commit a violation?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

The NCAA-Women's committee is going to give the ball FC status on the catch and still allow the throw-in exception to land in the BC. So a new 10-second will be given.

As it should. Don't change the rule because of a situation which occurs infrequently.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Why would you assume that?
Why not accept that the ball achieves frontcourt status on the catch and then returns to the backcourt on the landing, but due to the throw-in exception the team does not commit a violation?

I know you are asking Matt….but….I would assume what you say but for the wording of 4-23-2. It discusses player location just as we all know it---player located where last in contact with court. ball location when have airborne player is last location of the player. I agree with you on everything accept throw in. 4-23-2 says (except during throw in). That language has to mean something..?

They may clarify but you could argue from that language that when I touch the ball in the air during throw in i have no status and thus the ball has no status….until I land. So clock starts on touching and count continues…

BTW-good to be back...

[Matt S.]

Originally Posted by BigCat

I know you are asking Matt….but….I would assume what you say but for the wording of 4-23-2. It discusses player location just as we all know it---player located where last in contact with court. ball location when have airborne player is last location of the player. I agree with you on everything accept throw in. 4-23-2 says (except during throw in). That language has to mean something..?

They may clarify but you could argue from that language that when I touch the ball in the air during throw in i have no status and thus the ball has no status….until I land. So clock starts on touching and count continues…

BTW-good to be back...

Exactly what BigCat said. The intent of the rule change is likely to both reward good defense and make the game more exciting. As with any rule change, all loopholes must be closed...I don't think the committee is looking to create situations where coaches can try to circumvent the true intent of the rule.

[bballrules]

I wondered how long it would take for this conversation to take place. And, as I stated at York, there will be a conversation with the men concerning this. Nowhere was it ever stated that the women's committee would be doing anything with this. And I did present the play for discussion and what MAY be the correct answer.

We know that the player who catches the throw-in may land in either the backcourt or frontcourt. NFHS goes so far as to say that this player has no status relative to frontcourt or backcourt status if that player (and only that player) returns to the floor possessing the ball (NFHS 2014-15 Point of Emphasis, page 69). The NCAA books do not specifically make this statement. 9-13.10 does not state that this player does or does not have any status.

Just sit tight...

But do look at 4-23.2

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by bballrules

I wondered how long it would take for this conversation to take place. And, as I stated at York, there will be a conversation with the men concerning this. Nowhere was it ever stated that the women's committee would be doing anything with this. And I did present the play for discussion and what MAY be the correct answer.

We know that the player who catches the throw-in may land in either the backcourt or frontcourt. NFHS goes so far as to say that this player has no status relative to frontcourt or backcourt status if that player (and only that player) returns to the floor possessing the ball (NFHS 2014-15 Point of Emphasis, page 69). The NCAA books do not specifically make this statement. 9-13.10 does not state that this player does or does not have any status.

Just sit tight...

But do look at 4-23.2

Your comment that the airborne player receiving the throw-in pass has no status relative to frontcourt/backcourt is not correct under NFHS rules. That phrase in the POE is also wrong. Unfortunately, different people author the rules and POEs over time and they sometimes don't fully understand what has been written previously.

I provided the correct understanding in post #17.

[Raymond]

Here's what the Men's side says in regards to player location:

4-23 Art. 2. When a player is in the air from a leap (except during a throw-in) or when a defensive player intercepts a ball while in the air, the player's status with reference to these two situations shall be the same as at the time the player was last in contact with the floor or an extension of the floor, such as a bleacher.


Does the Women's rule read the same?

[bballrules]

Yes

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Your comment that the airborne player receiving the throw-in pass has no status relative to frontcourt/backcourt is not correct under NFHS rules. That phrase in the POE is also wrong.

Nevada - this is the phrasing from the NF POEs last season. It's on Arbiter:

When an airborne player gains possession of the ball during a throw in, a jump ball or while on defense they are considered to have no status as related to front court or backcourt if they (and only that player) return to the floor possessing the ball. The location where they land will determine the location of the player and the ball.

Not that I agree with NF's "no status" determination but that's what it says. I do agree with your earlier comment as to what it should be: frontcourt status on the catch, backcourt status on the landing but given the exception it's not a violation. I think that's the least muddled way to look at things.

[Zoochy]

Originally Posted by BigCat

The NCAAM definition of ball location for airborne players--4-23-2 specifically excludes the throw in. says "(except during a throw in)". Somewhere else there is a case play or it was a test answer saying that the airborne player has "no status" when he first to touch it from throw in.

Think about it... Player jumps from Back Court, catches the ball and lands 1st foot in Front Court and 2nd foot in back Court.
Catches the ball. Has Back Court status
Lands in Front Court. Has Front Court status.
Touches Back Court. Has Back Court status. VIOLATION

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Zoochy

Think about it... Player jumps from Back Court, catches the ball and lands 1st foot in Front Court and 2nd foot in back Court.
Catches the ball. Has Back Court status
Lands in Front Court. Has Front Court status.
Touches Back Court. Has Back Court status. VIOLATION

Yes, that's how it has always been. The exception only applies to a player jumping front his FRONTCOURT.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Zoochy

Think about it... Player jumps from Back Court, catches the ball and lands 1st foot in Front Court and 2nd foot in back Court.
Catches the ball. Has Back Court status
Lands in Front Court. Has Front Court status.
Touches Back Court. Has Back Court status. VIOLATION

Not on a throwin.

NCAA 4-3-8:

After a jump ball or during a throw-in, the player in his/her front court, who makes the initial touch on the ball while both feet are off the playing court, may be the first to secure control of the ball and land with one or both feet in the back court. It makes no difference if the first foot down was in the front court or back court.

NFHS 9-9-3:

During a jump ball, throw-in or while on defense, a player may legally jump from his/her frontcourt, secure control of the ball with both feet off the floor and return to the floor with one or both feet in the backcourt. The player may make a normal landing and it makes no difference whether the first foot down is in the frontcourt or backcourt.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Zoochy

Think about it... Player jumps from Back Court, catches the ball and lands 1st foot in Front Court and 2nd foot in back Court.
Catches the ball. Has Back Court status
Lands in Front Court. Has Front Court status.
Touches Back Court. Has Back Court status. VIOLATION

I'm sorry Zooch. (i like that better than ZoochY. please consider changing your name) ive proven here on the forum i can be a bit slow. i understand normal status rules. not clear on your first few sentences.

during throw in i can catch in air and land first foot in Fc second in BC and it is not a violation. exception to normal BC rules. i get to make natural landing.
what we are trying to figure out is does the 10 second count end moment i touch ball in air if i left from FC. under normal rules the ball has FC status. count should end. NCAAm status stuff however says, "except during throw in"...

so maybe they subscribe to the theory when you catch ball in air off a throw in you have no status until you land. therefore, count continues on touch and vilation....its been a long day...
i do not think they should change status rules further. if player jumps from front court then the ball has FC status and count should end. he can land in BC and not violation cause of the exception. i dont see a reason to change it to "no status." we will see what they come up with...

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Zoochy

Think about it... Player jumps from Back Court, catches the ball and lands 1st foot in Front Court and 2nd foot in back Court.
Catches the ball. Has Back Court status
Lands in Front Court. Has Front Court status.
Touches Back Court. Has Back Court status. VIOLATION

Zooch, i saw Nevada post and he is right...and you are right that if player jumps from BC and catches ball in air, first foot down is in FC..he has FC status. if he touches the other foot in BC he has violated. the OP we were talking about had player jumping from FC and catching ball i air. i think question was do we stop the 10 count....